On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 09:34:55PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:> If you have a simple command that give you a list of new> symbols then this is easy to script as Michal also> shows with the below example.> > > > How about> > > new=$(make listnewconfig)> > > if test -n "$new"; then> > > echo "Please set the following options:" >&2> > > echo "$new" >&2> > > exit 1> > > fi> > > ? Wouldn't that be the same as nonint_oldconfig before?> > what's the other use cases for listnewconfig (other than a incomplete> > nonint_oldconfig)?> > listnewconfig is for everyone that like to see a list of new> config options - without touching the current configuration.> > By limiting listnewconfig to do only one thing you actually> create further uses than before.> > This is not about how well it applies to the tailored> use in redhat's current scripts.*sigh* I think we have people able to handle such complex changes.

this is not what it's about. I don't care how it's called or if scriptswill need to be changed. What I want to know is if either:a) we're reducing functionality of something in order to support more *real* use cases with the same code, making it more generic;orb) we're reducing functionality based in theorical use cases.